‘Science’ concludes that perhaps half of what is called science is probably false
Chart of ‘Science’ (Efbrazil)
How scientific is the modern science community? Well, two readers sent me links related to the following that suggests perhaps half of what is considered as science is not:
Editors of World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journals: “Much of the Scientific Literature, Perhaps HALF, May Simply Be Untrue”June 1, 2015Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world. It is therefore striking that their chief editors have both publicly written that corruption is undermining science.
The editor in chief of Lancet, Richard Horton, wrote last month:
Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity [i.e. pervasiveness within the scientific culture] of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.
***
Part of the problem is that no-one is incentivised [to offer incentives] to be right.
Similarly, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, wrote in 2009:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
In her must-read essay, Dr. Angell skewers drug companies, university medical departments, and medical groups which set the criteria for diagnosis and treatment as being rotten with corruption and conflicts of interest.
And we’ve previously documented that the government sometimes uses raw power to cover up corruption in the medical and scientific fields.
Postscript: Corruption is not limited to the medical or scientific fields. Instead, corruption has become systemic throughout every profession … and is so pervasive that it is destroying the very fabric of America.
June 1, 2015
Those who think science is the measure of all truth might want to check the data first.
Here’s a quote for you: “A lot of what is published [in scientific journals] is incorrect.” Care to guess where those words appeared? Not on a website that questions the “consensus of experts on climate change.” Nor do they appear in a publication associated with intelligent design or other critiques of Neo-Darwinism.
They appeared in the April 11, 2015, issue of the Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal.
The writer, Richard Horton, was quoting a participant at a recent symposium on the “reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research.” Specifically, the symposium discussed one of the “most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.”
And he’s referring to scientific research—the research that not only purports to tell us how the world works, but, increasingly, how people should order their lives and societies.
As Horton told Lancet readers, “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
He continues, “In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world.”
We recently saw an example of this in a story about a much-publicized study purporting to show that voters were likely to change their minds about same-sex marriage if they were visited by gay pollsters who shared their stories with them.
Researchers seeking to reproduce the findings found discrepancies in the data and asked the original researcher for the original data. The researcher was unable to produce the original data. This led the lead researcher to request that the study be withdrawn. Even supporters of same-sex marriage acknowledged that the study and the conclusions drawn from it were fraudulent. http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/12/27474?spMailingID=11525872&spUserID=OTQ0MjM5NDU2S0&spJobID=560044991&spReportId=NTYwMDQ0OTkxS0
The actual percentage is probably more than half.
As a scientist, I have seen first-hand how biases, money, ‘political correctness,’ and corruption have affected the scientific community. Researchers who do not promote the product that they are funded to research have a tendency to lose future funding.
Many medications have serious problems that studies tend to overlook. A reality that few wish to admit is that in most cases, so-called ‘double-blind’ studies are not ‘double-blind’ as the researchers often know the ‘real’ (what is being tested) vs. placebo (something that supposedly appears identical but in reality contains nothing believed to be helpful) prior to the end of the trial when they are supposedly ‘blindly’ collecting data.
Notice also the following from Dana Ullman:
Is modern medicine actually “scientific”? The gold standard for modern medicine is the double-blind and placebo-controlled trial. But there are serious problems with these studies, unknown to most, but widely acknowledged by researchers.
Scientists can easily set up a study that shows a drug is effective for a very limited period of time. Most studies of drugs for psychiatric conditions last only six weeks. What happens after that? Do they still work? Do they start to cause terrible side effects?
The studies will not tell you.
…
“One of the things that have come out recently about some of the antidepressant research is that it’s amazing how many studies had negative results but they are almost never published. Only the ones with the positive results are published and according to the FDA, drug companies only need to have two positive studies.
They can have 18 negative studies but if you have just two positive studies, that’s enough for acceptance. That’s a serious problem.” http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/22/lies-damn-lies-and-medical-research.aspx accessed 06/03/15
Dr. Mercola (MD) reported:
Back in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.
Then, in 2008, Dr. Ioannidis again showed that much of scientific research being published is highly questionable.
According to his study:
“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.”
He noted problems with experimental and statistical methods as the main culprits, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias and selective reporting.
The newer study, meanwhile, suggested that economic conditions, such as oligopolies, artificial scarcities and the winner’s curse, are largely to blame for incorrect research.
Because of the way this system runs, journals may be more likely to publish studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from “hot” competitive fields. For instance, a Cochrane Collaboration review and analysis of published flu vaccine studies found that flu vaccine studies sponsored by industry are treated more favorably by medical journals even when the studies are of poor quality.
None of this, of course, has anything to do with scientific merit or accuracy. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/22/lies-damn-lies-and-medical-research.aspx accessed 06/03/15
But it is not just a problem with conventional medicine. The nonsense about evolution being ‘scientific’ has long been a joke. Some claims about the science related to that are so bizarre (see New Times: ‘There is no other side to evolution’) no right thinking real scientist could accept them (see also Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical?).
Much of the medical research that is published is bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies interested in promoting unnatural products for human consumption.
Even in the days of the Apostle Paul, certain ‘knowledge’ was falsely called ‘science.’ Here are two translations:
20 O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge — 21 by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
Grace be with you. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, NKJV)20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (1 Timothy 6:20-21, KJV).
Problems of contradictions of what is called ‘knowledge/science’ exist to this day. If there ever is an apparent contradiction between the Bible and ‘science’ remember that the Bible teaches:
4 Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar. (Romans 3:4)
The Bible is scientific and reliable. Not all ‘scientists are.
Some items of possibly related interest may include:
Is God’s Existence Logical? Some say it is not logical to believe in God. Is that true? Here is a link to a YouTube sermon titled Is it logical to believe in God?
Is Evolution Probable or Impossible or Is God’s Existence Logical? Part II This short article clearly answers what ‘pseudo-scientists’ refuse to acknowledge. Here is a link to a YouTube video titled Quickly Disprove Evolution as the Origin of Life.
How Old is the Earth and How Long Were the Days of Creation? Does the Bible allow for the creation of the universe and earth billions of years ago? Why do some believe they are no older than 6,000 years old? What is the gap theory? Where the days of creation in Genesis 1:3 through 2:3 24 hours long? Here is a link to a sermon: Genesis, ‘Prehistoric man,’ and the Gap theory. Here is a link to a related article in Spanish: ¿Cuán vieja es la Tierra? ¿Cuán largos fueron los Días de la Creación? ¿Teoría de la brecha?
Questions and Answers from Genesis Many wonder about certain early events that this article discusses.
Where Did God Come From? Any ideas? And how has God been able to exist? Who is God?
Building Character: Going on to Perfection Once you have accepted Jesus, do you need to strive for perfection and build character? A related video sermon is available: Going on to perfection and building character.
What is the Meaning of Life? Who does God say is happy? What is your ultimate destiny? Do you really know? Does God actually have a plan for YOU personally? There is also a video titled What is the meaning of your life?
 |
Tweet |
|